vincetylor

Bob, the deck is stacked, and it's not a fair deck we are dealing with now is it? Sir Brian has stated this himself. "Unfair" "there's this problem" "rigged" all very similar expressions in my book on this issue. It's currently stacked against those with experience and those that have put time into the site. Post an image nowadays and you will NOT get any decent exposure at all. It's been stacked that way for some time now.

 

If my thoughts are correct on why rate recent sum continues as the default view, the idea here is no longer to present the best images for the public to view via the TRP, but the idea is to make the most money possible. In this case at the expense of gallery quality, plain and simple. If you cut corners/quality too much, you start to look like McDonalds... there is one on every corner.

 

Like I stated above, if it's just temporary, then fine, let the newbies have a little fun, some extra exposure and a few more subscriptions for the site sure can't hurt either. However, if this is the long term direction the site wishes to go as well (and it is starting to look that way) then that's another story. The bottom line is that the TRP should offer the best images available, and at present that is defintely not the case... by a mile!

You two sound like you're married or something. I can't even tell what the argument points are. What exactly are you in disagreement about??

 

Most comments on the site are more or less cream puffs. And we can all use a few of those anyway. Occasionally we get the constructive critiques as well. These do not necessarily have to point out what's wrong with an image, or what can be improved about it, but can also simply explain WHY the image works. Very few people have that ability or desire from my own experience. Sometimes I know it "looks good", but when I can find out why it looks good, then I have improved in my craft, and will build on that knowledge later on. When I see a mistake pointed out, or a suggestion to improve the image, this is also very helpful. Often I don't have the time or even feel like commenting, so a rating will just suffice. It tells the photographer that I have not only viewed the image, but based on past ratings, what I thought about it compared to his other work. The problem here is that what I have just wasted five minutes of my evening typing out here is already well known by everybody, and again I cannot see what this discussion is even about, so I'll just go somewhere else....

I should add since I've yet to post an image and run it through the RR, I have yet to experience the lowballing, dive bombers that many are actually complaining about. Perhaps I'd then feel like you Jay...

I've said this before, but when a photographer rates a number of images from any given photographer over a period of time, they actually do have a good measure of value in my mind. While it's true the RR queues are anonymous (I'd personally prefer all raters be accountable) I don't think there is any real problem with keeping those names anonymous, if it helps people to give honest rates. Plus these ratings would only make up a few of the ratings for somebody like you and I, Jay. You can also choose to post without going through the Rate Recent since the fact is you and I and many others with experience are not about to get any decent visibility at all. I noticed Dave N. is not running any through that queue with his latest uploads. The problem I have with that situation though, is it's not a fair system at all. If somebody like Dave or Jay, (you have some very nice work too Lori) or anybody else with experience decides to post an image on Photo.net, they should at least have the opportunity to get some type of decent visibility, so people other than their friends can appreciate these fine images as well. As it is now, it won't happen, and that's just not right.

I think I understand why Brian has stuck to the rather bland as well as unfair (to longtime members) rate recent "SUM" default page for so long now. Most of the names on the first few pages are indeed unheard of from my experiences here. And Brian has stated that's what he wants. What I noticed however was an unusually large percentage of these newer ones were subscribers now. Perhaps by allowing these newer, less experienced people to have high visibility on what are often very mediocre images, they in turn feel more compelled to subscribe. Of course subscriptions help pay bills. Because the default TRP view is based entirely from the RR queues, he has practically guaranteed experienced photographers will not be anywhere near the top of those pages, regardless of how good their work is. Which in turn guarantees room for these newer individuals to fill those TRP pages instead. Pretty clever actually. Plus the mate-raters still have their average view as well as Top Photographers pages, so they too are happy and some eventually subscribe as well as bring their friends. So where does that leave the regulars that don't mate-rate?? Guess that's where some type of favorites thingy being discussed comes into play... WEEEE, can't wait...

 

I can somewhat understand the need to make decisions like this based on trying to make Photo.net profitable (especially if this were only a temporary situation). However in another recent thread, the facts seem to indicate the site was doing much better financially and is no longer on the brink of going down at all. In fact one person was quite upset since Brian appeared to be getting all the credit for this turnaround. (That should have been a private e-mail by the way, not posted in the forums). IF solvency is indeed the case, as mentioned in that same thread, it would appear then that the Photo.net gallery is not about offering the best images at all, but instead is about how the site can be set up in such a way as to make the most money. THAT, is something I would have a problem with. You don't rig the gallery so that it makes the most money at the expense of fairness. This appears (from what I can see) what is taking place right now.

Will you please put the ratings in the order they were received, so that when a new rating is given, we can know who it was that gave it and what that rating was? It would just be helpful. Thanks.

"Carl Root I will go and have another long look at your picture and see what I think about it and rate it again if I feel it necessary I hope you will do the same for pictures you too have given very low marks too maybe a bit to quickly. Take care."

 

How can I get in on some of this action?? Let me find Hannah...

Many phony and lowballing accounts have been deleted in the past six months. Many of these people have come back again under differnt names. Sometimes they are allowed to stay, other times they get deleted again. The point is when you get caught for whatever transgression and subsequently banned, you can be sure these people will be quite agitated. I am sure some of these are indeed responsible for the bots as well as lowballing. How much easier it will now be to hide in the RR.

 

Let me add something Brian. The reason the Faith Cohen's/Golarka's etc were allowed to continue for almost a year before getting your axe, was because they knew better than to lay down the 1/1 ratings. They simply went to the 2s and 3s since those were more difficult to prove. Your software I would imagine is not going to delete those ratings David received. Instead your level of complaints is going to skyrocket as is already happening.

 

One last thing: I received a new rating on my latest upload. However because you are sticking to the alphabetical listing for raters, rather than by date, I have no idea what the rating was or who gave it. Your purpose in making the names available is becomimg a lost cause. Will you please put them according to the date, or at least give some explanation why you choose this other way? Thanks.

zzzzzzzz

Dave's suggestion sounds like it might apply to Bob as well. When one is tired, burned out stressed etc. it's easy to just blast away a problem rather than solve it.

 

One suggestion Brian might be for you to post images for a while under another identity. Perhaps doing so will help you to see some of the issues a little differently.

 

For example: The request to put the now visible names according to date received given rather than alphabetically is not a suggestion just to "complain". It really has much more practical value for the photographer that has been around for some time. Since you have not posted images in years, this little fact could easily have escaped you. It sure LOOKS better alphabetically. I am sure it can be somewhat convenient when looking for a particular persons rating as well. But over-all if you rated one of my first images posted years ago, how could I possibly know who gave that rating and or what it was?? Putting the names according to the dates given is just much more practical for those actually posting the images.

 

The other issue that many seem unhappy about is regarding the anonymous RR raters. Again, try posting what you feel is one of your absolute best images under another name. Then see how you feel when a select few people consistently give your images scores two to four points lower than others. As you know lowballing phony accounts are a very real part of the experience here. You personally deleted thousands of these earlier this year in a major cleanup. NOW however, you get some very similar scores, but have no idea who gave them and can do nothing about it. As a photographer who's in charge of this place, you might be much more tempted to put all names on all rates just for this very reason alone. But you really need go through the experience first to see what all the complaining is about.

 

Also, post your best work again, now this time watch how the TRP is filled with images that are clearly very average in your mind (and in the mind of many) but these people have a circle of people that hand out nothing but 7/7s only to these ones in their circle. You know what they are doing, you accept it's part of life at Photo.net. BUT, it does not go away, it instead grows and grows and now these same people are posting three four even ten images at a time, all receiving the same inflated 7/7s from the same group of people, only that group has since doubled and tripled. You know who they are because you are a photographer and post/rate/comment right beside them.

 

Same goes for rate recent sum. Imagine you have been around a while, have a many persons interested in your work, a few closer friends etc. Now because the TRP is based on sum total of ratings rather than average (which had to be changed because the mate-raters had clearly taken over those pages entirely) because you have people who follow your work and will offer comments and ratings, you are now penalized and have no chance of visibility just because those rates have not gone through the RR and cannot be included in the *SUM* total. So your image is sent to page 23 (as was the case with Dave N twice) yet very average images with much lower ratings are on the first few pages.

 

Again this is not about being chronic complainers here. These are very reasonable, logical issues that can and should be looked at. Issue that will be much more clearly discernable IF one is involved in the posting images process.

Generally speaking comments are usually more helpful. But not always. Many of the mate-raters comments are more shallow than their worthless rates. "Great image", "Good colors", "7/7", "Good lighting", "Excellent" "Great" "Wow" "Good sharpnes" "very good" "Good", "nice subject" "nice" ....

 

On the other hand, IF you choose to follow a particular photographer throughout the months and years you've been around, a rating can actually say quite a bit in my opinion. I do like to follow certain people, and will offer an honest critique somewhat regularly with a rating. However, life is short, can be very busy and we do not always have the time to sit down and write out the comments we wish we could. In that case offering a just rating here and there can be very helpful. Especially since it can be compared to other ratings from these same people. If I give Guy a 7/6 on an image with a comment, but then only give him a 6/6, 6/5 or 5/5 or whatever on another image, that should give him somewhat of an accurate idea what I though of the image compared to his others. Brian may have said that ratings are for the site, but in reality they are also for the photographer. That's just the simple truth.

I have a strong feeling the anonymous RR ratings are going to cause huge issues with photographers posting. Actually the degree of negative comments just within 24 hours is rather surprising. In a sense, the many people that created the good-ole *bots* that wreaked havoc throughout during the last few months, can easily cause even more aggravation by honestly lowballing in the RR and remaining hidden. Frustrations run even higher it seems. When rating some yesterday, I admit it was nice to not have to look over my shoulder. However, you also have to go through what I considered dozens of snapshots which really sort of caused me to lose interest rather quickly. The other advantage with putting the names with the rates in the RR is you always have the chance to receive some attention on your work by taking the time to rate others. Not so the way it is now. Basically there seems to be no really good reasons that I can see to rate in that direction at all (RR) since you are mostly dealing with snapshots, and have practically zero chance of getting any returns on your investment. These however are fairly minor issues in my mind. The lowball dive-bombing and remaining anonymous could be another story entirely. It could turn into WW3, at least the potential is there. Don't think I've ever heard so many people considering quitting altogether. It might be best to go all out with the names on all rates Brian. Just my opinion...

Tony, just do your ratings through the Rate-Recent queues, and there you have complete anonymity now. Under the old system many people knew if you gave a 4/4.

"BTW It appears for right now that all of the Golarkas, Faith Cohens, and Hanna Reitsches have been purged from the system."

 

I agree that they would be less effective having to go through the rate recent queues. They could not *target* specific individuals as in the past. However, it took almost ONE YEAR to get these lowballers and their lowball ratings purged from the site. Imagine just how bad the disease COULD spread IF they have the cover of complete anonymity.

 

Yes some suspected you might be one of these ones because they rated many of your images 7/7. I was NOT among those that suspected this however.

There is a greatly appreciated *connection* in my mind by seeing the names and the rates together again. That is a definite improvement Brian. Thank you.

 

While I probably agree with others that seeing ALL names would be preferred, the fact that these are still anonymous does not bother me much at all for the moment. However (and a big HOWEVER here) I would not be surprised if this BECOMES a problem fairly quickly with lowballers choosing this route to do their thing. The Faith Cohen, Golarka's etc etc who made lowballing an art-form would simply have a field day under the cover of complete anonymity. True, they could not choose their victims as in the past as easily and would have to go through everybody that posts anything. But in the end, knowing the amount of frustration they could cause by going under-cover, I see the potential for these ones to flourish and of course frustrations to therefore follow. Just a thought.

 

Two things that I'd like to put on the table Brian:

 

1) Could you please post the names of the raters in the order they were given, rather than alphabetically? This as you know is how they used to be listed. If it does not matter that much to you, it would be much more of a help when it comes to people rating older images in our folders. One of the things I missed the most about having ythe names with the rates taken away, was the ability to see who took the time to go into my older works, and see what they thought of those images. Even though the names are back up right now, if someone does go into these older images, there is no way to know who it was exactly. Whereas in the past when the last rater was listed at the end of the list, you could quickly identify them and the rates. It would be very helpful if you could post them this way once again.

 

2) The rate recent SUM is as unfair a system as you have ever used. That is, unfair to people with any time put in on the site. It still baffles me that you continue with that view at all, much less as the default TRP view, especially since mate-raters are not curbing any of their bad habbits. Again, if Dave N., Kim Slonaker, Wilson Tsoi or anybody with and experience posts an image, and people outside the RR rate those images (very likely by the way) then they are penalized and have virtually no chance to get TRP visibility simply because the system is biased now towards new people. New people that have yet to contribute much of anything on this site. There is no problem in my mind if these experienced ones get pushed down the TRP list because of posting a weaker image. But the fact is, they are being pushed down the list (often FAR down) because of having many others interested in them that rate outside the RR and therefore take away rates needed to get any decent placement. It's just an uneven field Brian. Or try this; allow All of these images to get the ten ratings in the RR regardless of who rates outside of the queue. That would work just as effectively. This way everybody gets the 10,12 or whatever number needed to gain an honest placement.

 

IF you do switch over to rate recent average (as you seem to hint at) then some images are placed on that list right now with only a couple of ratings. I would suggest making the minimum 10... again to make the filed a little more level.

 

Just a couple of thougts from experience here. Over-all I do see your putting the names back up as a step towards making the experience here more satisfying, and more enjoyable.

Good point Walter. In fact, why compress the medium view at all? Just resize it to the smaller view without compressing. That would work better for everybody.

 

Why not give it 30 days Brian? See what happens.

 

Walter, why are you still with dialup? I thought that was extinct... well, except for Carl.

Why is it that regardless of the thread, I get everybody's contribution via e-mail (usually right away) but never get posts from you Brian? Occasionally someone other than you might get his post zapped in some way by the system and I won't get notified, but this is always the case with your posts. Some kind of mafia thing?

 

I would hope nobody would be foolish enough to ask for an interchange of high rates. Although if you put up some reward money...

 

My requests Brian.

 

1) Please put the names back together with the rates in the order they were received. If it's not a big deal to you, it would be a big plus to most of the photographers. The interchange is very valuable to us. Plus ratings on older images will have some meaning since they will once again be recognized.

 

2) Forget Rate recent SUM. Go to rate-recent average then, but at least make sure 15 ratings get counted altogether. The 10 would suffice, but 15 would better insure a more honest system for TRP placement.

 

3) Take the top 10 exchangers of 7/7s and send them a warning, or better yet chop off their heads (ratings) asap. The lesson will travel quickly. There is no other way to end the nonsense. You've tried everything but throwing the kitchen sink at them...

 

4) If somebody posts a larger-sized image, can you make that the default view rather than the compressed medium view? As it is when the click on the thumbnail they get that ugly medium view, then have to click again to see the large view.

 

5) Forget Calvinball. Until a more precise system can be developed which does not penalize long time members, just go after the abusers themselves and put all the other ratings back on the images.

 

6) Put some type of limit to the number of images any photographer can have in the three day TRP. This too can help prevent the abuse that's been going on.

 

There, is that so bad? You can put the fun as well as some fairness back into the Photo.net gallery once again. Would be a very welcomed change!

The pics were not bad pics David, but between the two, they had received 22 7/7s and not ONE other number. BOTH images had the same names as raters too. My point was that Brian's recent decisions have not curbed mate-rating one single bit. This is why he has told us he is using the rate recent SUM as the default TRP view... even though he has said "there is this problem" with that view not being a fair view. It is also his reason for implementing "Calvinball" which discounts mutual 7s accross the board, blindly eliminating many fair ratings in the process.

 

I am just curious that (even though his intentions were to lessen the mating) since these ideas have failed completely in their goal, why are things still the same?? Why continue with an unfair system? If I post an image and that image receives very little feedback/visibility/ratings because it is a weaker image, then that alone tells me a few things. However, if I post an image and it receives very little feedback/visibility/ratings because of THE SYSTEM IN PLACE, then that is another issue entirely. The latter is currently the case as it is right now.

"I really miss the PhototNet that I knew when I first became a member here." Walter T.

 

I agree and so do many others. The number of professionals that post images in the gallery now must be a fraction of what it was when I first joined. Back then the gallery was filled with outstanding images. Was actually intimidating. One after another has packed up and gone elsewhere. Perhaps that is the new plan here.

 

Taking the names away from the ratings, implementing Calvinball (which discounts plenty of honest rates), and using this ridiculous system of rate recent SUM is all part of the backwards direction in my opinion. And what was the primary reason for these and other decisions?? To try to limit mate-rating. Obviously it has not worked. Posting an image on Photo.net today is practically pointless Walter. Experienced photographers are guaranteed little to no visibility because of the current system. You can't tell who rates what unless you plan to do lots of clicking. No visibility, far less comments, can't tell who's rating your work... forget it.

 

Brian has single-handedly diminished the Photo.net experience with these and many of his other choices! While at the same time mate-rating is perhaps as bad and as flagrant as i've ever seen. Go look at the *Average* TRP view right now. Not only are the names the same, but now, look at how high the ratings are. Amazing how each part of the system has gone backwards. At least other paying jobs are getting done faster, so it's not all bad I guess. Plus I still learn quite a bit from the equipment forums. Forget the gallery, and forget posting images under the current system though. It's a total joke.

I checked out your wedding folder with the D2x. Some really nice captures by the way. It looks like there is a yellowish cast on most of the images. Do you recall if the actual lighting had that cast, or perhaps something else?

 

Thanks ahead of time.

No need to close the playground Walt, they only go to other ones. THEY need to be handled in the direct-approach fashion! In fact these mate-raters (whom Brian is expecting to change their ways before changing the rate recent sum default to something reasonably fair) don't even bother requesting a critique at all. Why should they, I've already explained in another thread thay are solely interested in the Top Photographers pages. All of their ratings have gone through the roof.

 

Here look at this image.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3355562

 

Has 15 ratings altogether. All 15 are 7/7s. Wish I could shoot something that great and original. The names are very telling.

 

And lookey here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3354526

 

 

This one is actually rated even higher! It has only seven ratings. all 7/7s again... and what a surprise, all the same names as on the first image. In fact the first few pages are filled with the maters images. Only now they have even higher scores than ever seen on this site.

 

Yes Calvinball has really had an effect on mate-rating all right. The rate-recent sum is also having a powerful effect in changing the ways of the abusers. Yeehaaaa Photo.net is fixed!

Nice to see you again Howie/Gary. You've been missed. I remember your last (and only) other participation of any sort on this site. You sure would know about those Top Photographers pages now wouldn't you!

Because I have been laying specific suggestions on the table Mike. And because I AM involved with the gallery, I AM involved with rating (YOU have zero ratings). I DO comment (last I checked you had eight total) and I have been active posting images, sharing information with many others. Something you have little or no involvement with at all in the gallery. All you have done is complain about our doing just that, making suggestions to help improve things here. If you really knew what you were talking about regarding these issues, you too could perhaps offer SOMETHING constructive. Instead, you only complain about those trying to offer suggestions.

 

You say the current TRP is very fair. I would suggest you are dead wrong. In fact, Brian Mottershead has already mentioned it's NOT fair the way it is now, and that he plans to change it. Care to comment about that now??

 

A level playing field is all people are asking for. One where mate-raters do not cheat their way to the top pages, and one where people who've been involved are not penalized for doing just that. Rate recent SUM as TRP default does just that. Give me a break. You are way off! This too however is nothing new.

I have a 22 inch monitor and the TRP images go five wide. That is a nice change.

 

Overall no complaints...

Well Brian, I definitely do appreciate your last sentence:

 

"And if Calivball disqualifies some ratings that shouldn't have been disqualified, then nothing stops them from being dis-dis-qualified."

 

Fair enough. I realize this is not some proven scientific formula. So, if you do see some problems with a few of your chosen algorithms to start, it is good knowing you can and are willing to change them. I just did look at three photographers that had lost ratings when you first implemented the Calvinball system, even though none of them have rated a single image. All of their rates have been since put back. That was the fair thing to do. I also hope that certain criteria be implemented regarding some of the issues written above. Especially regarding the general blanket ten 7s and boom all are disqualified. Other considerations could and should be factored in that equation.

 

.."your overall thesis had a very significant problem: it seems to define mate rating and problems in terms of what you do or don't do rather than objective criteria". Mr. Mike Dixon again

 

Mike, if I wanted to mate-rate or stack the deck so to speak, I sure don't need to come here now do I ? In fact none of these obvious abusers ever bother coming here. Well, one did several months ago, and if memory serves me correctly he was roasted out of the site altogether. Any of us could easily just do the "Great Image". "good colors", or my favorite nowadays...(I see it's really the new catch-phrase with mate-raters) 7/7 on the heading, and then 7/7 for the comment. I think I could learn to do that Mike. No, if trying to manipulate this system was my goal, there would sure be easier ways to go about doing just that... with no typing practically and no time away from work. Yes, I probaly should had phrased my comment a little differently. Here I'll try it again, this time with a marked improvement.

 

One day (hopefully) you will either take the time to read the specific points actually written, or find something meaningful to contribute in the *SITE FEEDBACK FORUM*. I'll put my money on the former.

 

There, is that better??

 

The bottom line Brian, Mike and anybody who gives two cents; mate-rating has not been stomped out at all. In fact the first page of the "average" view is filled with these very same people. You've done the anonymous rating thing, the Calvinball, the rate recent sum, limiting 7s etc etc...

 

So now what??